Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

Here's a fantastic picture which should satisfy skeptics in regards to the proper protocols of analysis. In 1981, a woman named Hannah McRoberts
snapped this awesome shot of a classic dome UFO. It was shot off the east coast of Vancouver Island and has undergone a scientific analysis by one of
NASA's credible scientists, Richard F. Haines. Published in the Journal of
Scientific Exploration Vol 1, No. 2, pp. 129147, 1987

The study linked is extensive and is 19 pages. It should stop the "birds, bugs" explanations it its tracks. I will point out, in the abstract it is
stated "These analyses suggest that the disc was a three
dimensional object located at a distance of at least 30 feet from the camera;" Now I don't know if that was a typo and was meant to say 300 feet?
Because the abstract conclusion seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps it was stated this way because there had already been extensive
camera/lens/shutter speed analysis done which might mean that no object less than 30 feet from the camera would be in focus. Just thought I
would touch on before someone else points it out and hangs up this thread on a technicality.

At any rate, subsequently, another comment from a well respected scientist Dr James Harder:

Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative
- in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud. However, some of the indicators of an authentic photograph can help establish likelihood of an
authentic photo. These are -

1. That the negative involved is one of a sequence of outdoor pictures and that the frame in question is not an isolated one. One way of producing a
hoax is to re-photograph a positive print onto which has pasted an addition. To do a good job of hoaxing then one would have to re-photograph an
entire roll of negative film.

2. That there are no inconsistencies in the lighting of the strange object and the rest of he scene. In the subject photo, I note that the shadows in
the lower left of the scene indicate a Sun position nearly behind the camera. There is a reflection on the forward face of the UFO that is consistent
with this Sun position. There also seems to be a bright spot under the UFO not connected with external lighting - maybe a light on the UFO.

3. With the right equipment, it is possible to make certain measurements of negative density of the UFO image and of other images of objects at
estimated distances from the lens. Here the object is to show that the unknown is not nearby - and thus not a hubcap or other such object thrown into
the air. The idea is to measure, from the image of the object at a known distance, the atmospheric 'extinction coefficient'.

On a clear day, with a low value, contrasts between dark shadowed areas and brightly lit areas retain their distinction over greater distances. On
hazy days, the light and dark areas blend towards a mid-range shade, giving the appearance that distant mountains have of being one shade of grey.
Nearby shadows can show their true darkness, as opposed to the lighter shade of distant shadows. But in this picture there are no nearby shadows to
serve as a standard, only shadows of trees in the lower left bottom.

Conclusion:

"All this considered, the photo presented here appears to be an excellent and probably genuine photo of a classical disc photographed in daylight.
Although unlikely, if further information and clarification is available, it will be presented in a future issue of the Bulletin

Further, the following Link to a former Frisbee manufacturer who rules out the aerodynamics of the object as being that of a 'Frisbee'

Even if it is not a commercial frisbee it could just be something thrown in the air and photographed like we have seen in the past.

Proving a photograph has not been 'tampered' with doesnt rule out someone taking a photograph of a double projected image like we have seen in the
past.

Many 'experts have' been proven wrong in the past with fake photographs and as for NASA ive never seen them explain half of the anomalies in their own
pictures to be trusting them with someone else's pics.

Further, the following Link to a former Frisbee manufacturer who rules out the aerodynamics of the object as being that of a 'Frisbee'

Even if it is no a commercial frisbee it could just be something thrown in the air and photographed like we have seen in the past.

You know, after seeing so may photos of blurds these days, I'm now wondering if that's not what we're looking at here. It looks suspiciously similar,
and the report from the photographer includes the frequently damning assertion that they didn't see it when they took the photo. We know that
a bird can position itself so that it creates surprisingly well-defined saucer shape.

Just not jumping to conclusions about something based purely upon what is in front of my eyes (or Mr. Haines's). I've been to enough magic shows to
understand that not everything is what it first appears to be.

Something relatively small and disk-like that the photographer didn't see when they took the picture? That peg fits into a blurd hole pretty
good.

Not a typo is more believable. That would support someone creating a small object and slinging it into the air while a cameraman chooses just the
right perspective for the shot. Viola` instant UFO.

Additionally it seems hard to believe aliens would come across star systems or dimensions in a craft that looks pretty much exactly like a 50 or 60's
movie flying saucer. Even human vessels would look more updated unless this is a knockoff of the Nazi flying bell thingy.

Not a typo is more believable. That would support someone creating a small object and slinging it into the air while a cameraman chooses just the
right perspective for the shot. Viola` instant UFO.

Either they wanted to leave that open for discussion by not limiting the distanceor under 30 feet would not fit into technical parameters of the
camera setting.

Haines does address this in the last two pages

where: X = the angle subtended by the disc. This angle is 1.307 " . Therefore,
Tan 1.30712 = 0.01 14 = (W/D)2 where: W = the assumed object width and
D = the separation distance between the camera and object. Letting W = 9
inches, D = 32.88 feet which exceeds the hyperfocal distance. If the disc object
was 10 or 50 feet in width it would have been 438 feet or 2,192 feet from the
camera, respectively. And if the disc had been hovering directly over the
mountain (i.e., 7,580 feet away) it would have been 173 feet in width.
Assuming that the camera shutter speed was 1/ 125th second and the disc
image was produced by a typical Frisbee travelling at 10 feet per second, a 9
inch diameter disc moving normal to the line of sight would move 0.96 inches
in his duration. Approximately 9.3% of the Frisbee's diameter would show
up as a blur on the leading and trailing edge of the Frisbee's photographic
image. There is virtually no blur visible on the photograph in question which
strongly argues that the disc was not travelling normal to the line of sight.

Substitute Frisbee with anything. Frying pan, hub cap, pizza pie...

Additionally it seems hard to believe aliens would come across star systems or dimensions in a craft that looks pretty much exactly like a 50 or 60's
movie flying saucer. Even human vessels would look more updated unless this is a knockoff of the Nazi flying bell thingy.

Understandable. However, you would have to admit 'our' subjective and highly speculative reasoning surrounding the speed, shape, size, color, model,
is nothing more than conjecture. We just don't know.

We know that a bird can position itself so that it creates surprisingly well-defined saucer shape.

Show me one that looks like this.

Well, there's this one:

And then there's this one:

That's just a couple. And guess where they were both taken at completely different times. Vancouver Island. The first one in 2005, the
second in 2007. Looks like the birds around Vancouver Island have a habit of showing up in people's photos looking like discs.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.